Women's Rights

[Strike For The South]

The "I only support abortion for rape or harm to the mother" is a crock of shit

If we extend personhood to fetuses we can't hold them accountable because they are a rape baby. That sentence was literally created to get the 10% of lazy "moderates" over to your side on this wedge issue

[Rhyfelwyr]

Strike, thank you for pointing out what should be blindingly obvious. Nobody will listen when a fundy like me says it, but its about time it was said.

Any position that maintains the personhood of the fetus while at the same time advocating for its death by abortion, is quite clearly totally intellectually and morally bankrupt. In fact it is completely nonsensical.

Any arguments about the child not being loved, or the parents' ability to cope with it, or the lack of foster carers, or harm to the mother's health, or whether rape was involved, all have NO BEARING WHATSOEVER on this core argument about the foetus' right to life. Because at the end of the day, not one of you who argue for abortion for those reasons will argue for infanticide on the same grounds. The argument will always be at core about whether the foetus constitutes a person with the right to life. Everything else is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT as far as the legalisation of abortion is concerned.

Apologies for the tacky use of capitalization but people need to start thinking a bit more.

I sometimes think that we are so conditioned into believing that the truth must always lie in the middle-ground, that we are willing to abandon even basic reasoning and inquiry, and instead adopt our positions based purely on how they relate to whatever the two supposed 'extremes' are. Eg, "abortion is bad, but I don't want to be one of those anti-abortion extremists, so I'll be reasonable and argue for abortion in rape cases or when the mother's health is threatened".

That is not being reasonable or clever. It is being lazy and stupid.

[Kadagar_AV]

Is something still intimate if you shared it with 23 nationalities?

Oh, it was 23 nationalities around 2008... 6 Seasons later the number is up - but the silly Technical Administrator here doesn't allow more flags in the signature...

It's been suggested that I should just use the UN flag, as uniting nations is basically what I do...

What can I say, I'm an intimate guy and love to cuddle...

[Beskar]

Strike, thank you for pointing out what should be blindingly obvious. Nobody will listen when a fundy like me says it, but its about time it was said.

There is a catch clause, "If we extend personage...". You have to subscribe to that viewpoint or straw man to actually be 'countered'.

I don't believe fetus has the same rights as a person, in the same way I don't believe an animal does either, but this doesn't make it acceptable to drown puppies for giggles, but if that animal is very sick they can be put down. Not all life is treated equally and there are different sliding scales.

So there is no lazy argument involved, or some kind of contradiction.

[Kadagar_AV]

The "I only support abortion for rape or harm to the mother" is a crock of shit

If we extend personhood to fetuses we can't hold them accountable because they are a rape baby. That sentence was literally created to get the 10% of lazy "moderates" over to your side on this wedge issue

There are other perspectives.

Say that my GF who shivers at the very idea of having sex with a black guy get raped by a black guy. Would she then also have the ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION to give birth to his child? Spread his rape genes on to the world?

Yes, it's the same as shooting someone in the head. But what if you actually WANT to shoot this person in the head?

I'm glad we empowered women to a degree where they can. Your view that a woman's body and mind if forcibly entered should ALSO then have to suffer through the further pain and humiliation of giving birth is despicable to me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

This is absolutely fascinating. On one hand, the argument of a woman carrying the baby of her rapist is horrifyingly compelling towards one side, on the other hand Kad's blatant racism and racial Darwinism (why does it have to a black rapist) has conditioned me to just write off a lot of what he says.

I can understand why Kad has such success with women, never has an individual brought up so many emotions inside me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also Brave New World is a dystopia for exactly the reason someone pointed out earlier using the Agent Smith reference. People need conflict and pain in order to function properly. A life where no pain is experienced warps individuals in the same way that children are warped from excessive coddling and praise.

Every moment of emotional pain I have experienced has ultimately made me a better individual. More self reliant, more independent, more resilient. These are all characteristics that are known to be good for an individual unless someone like Monty wants to take a trip down the path of 'how meaningless are value judgements'. BNW is objectively terrible because people inherently understand value in overcoming personal struggles, to reduce it down to 'it's only a matter of finding meaning, which is the same problem with today's society' leaves aside the obvious truth that excess can be just as destructive as famine.

[Rhyfelwyr]

There is a catch clause, "If we extend personage...". You have to subscribe to that viewpoint or straw man to actually be 'countered'.

I don't believe fetus has the same rights as a person, in the same way I don't believe an animal does either, but this doesn't make it acceptable to drown puppies for giggles, but if that animal is very sick they can be put down. Not all life is treated equally and there are different sliding scales.

So there is no lazy argument involved, or some kind of contradiction.

"Any position that maintains the personhood of the fetus while at the same time advocating for its death by abortion, is quite clearly totally intellectually and morally bankrupt. In fact it is completely nonsensical."

If you don't recognize the personhood of the foetus, then what I said in my above post doesn't apply to you.

Say that my GF who shivers at the very idea of having sex with a black guy get raped by a black guy. Would she then also have the ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION to give birth to his child? Spread his rape genes on to the world?

Ignoring the strange racial element to your argument, I think you need to get over the whole "evil rape baby" mentality. As PVC pointed out in a past thread, its a ridiculous, superstitious relic of medieval thinking.

Babies conceived by rape are not evil and they deserve all the same rights as you and me.

[Montmorency]

But those things are either in a corrupted form, or are more extreme in their extent than we are designed to handle. Sex without the relationship would be a corruption, it doesn't give us real fulfilment. Too much safety can also be a bad thing. We are meant to experience danger, if gives us adrenalin, and that works in with other bodily functions. From my personal experience, I think mental problems like anxiety and OCD can stem from internalizing emotions which have lost their natural outlet. We are made to fear but we never come across any danger, so we start thinking that ordinary things are threatening. A bit like when Agent Smith said they originally made the Matrix a paradise, but humans couldn't accept it, they kept trying to wake up from it.

The way we live has to be in tune with the way we are designed (whether you believe we were shaped by God or evolution).

1. Corruption? Fulfillment? In other words, not enough meaning.

2. You and ACIN are regurgitating the same tired old teleological standpoints. That is the larger point.

to reduce it down to 'it's only a matter of finding meaning, which is the same problem with today's society' leaves aside the obvious truth that excess can be just as destructive as famine.

The reduction is one that you two have made for me repeatedly. I am only pointing it out.

[Brenus]

“But those things are either in a corrupted form, or are more extreme in their extent than we are designed to handle. Sex without the relationship would be a corruption; it doesn't give us real fulfilment. Too much safety can also be a bad thing. We are meant to experience danger, if gives us adrenalin, and that works in with other bodily functions. From my personal experience, I think mental problems like anxiety and OCD can stem from internalizing emotions which have lost their natural outlet..” What corruption? To have sex is good for mental and physical hygiene. Lack of sex and stupid moral fences give frustrated and dangerous lunatics/fanatics like the ones who crucified a teenager because he was gay.
Live you belief as much as you want, but do not project it further. Sex is fun, great and great again, and all love is not sex. As part of sex is fulfillment, it is a teenager/rosy literature. Agree with danger, but push too far and then what… Adrenalin crushes?

“We are made to fear but we never come across any danger, so we start thinking that ordinary things are threatening” Agree, that is why some want us to fear sex, as it will allow them to control population through desire, so natural act become sins, so sinners (even in dream) become docile and obedient populace. Because sex is something that no one can control entirely. Make it sin and bob is your uncle and the world your oyster for the ones deciding what is sexually acceptable (reproduction) and not.

“The "I only support abortion for rape or harm to the mother" is a crock of shit.
If we extend personhood to fetuses we can't hold them accountable because they are a rape baby. That sentence was literally created to get the 10% of lazy "moderates" over to your side on this wedge issue”: Agree. If you believe that a dividing cell is a person, why the dividing cell should pay for the sin of it originator?

“Babies conceived by rape are not evil and they deserve all the same rights as you and me.” If they were babies, yes. But, thanks enlightenment we don’t live any more in the 19th Century early 20th century, a potential mother from rape (or un-wanted) baby will just have to abort and avoid all the trauma and difficulties due to an attack or an accident…

[a completely inoffensive name]

Monty, I am not comprehending your argument against the 'teleological' arguments. Do you think that some amount of pain and suffering is not needed for an individual?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also the BNW discussion might be split off into a new thread since it goes a bit off topic.

[Kadagar_AV]

This is absolutely fascinating. On one hand, the argument of a woman carrying the baby of her rapist is horrifyingly compelling towards one side, on the other hand Kad's blatant racism and racial Darwinism (why does it have to a black rapist) has conditioned me to just write off a lot of what he says.

I can understand why Kad has such success with women, never has an individual brought up so many emotions inside me.

Also, I'm great in bed.

Regardless... You have to acknowledge that this human being exist. I did in no way mean it "had" to be a black guy, a black guy was just what I used in my scenario to further explain the feeling of alienation this woman would feel in the given scenario.

I think this issue is one important enough to "remove the gloves" so to say. All individual situations have to be considered, and we as humanity have to do our DAMNED best to try to come out on the side of good.

If I raped you, would you then by law also want to HAVE to give birth to my child? Would you get a little twitch of illness in your stomach when the kid wanted to go learn skiing?

Don't worry, he/she would be good at it... genetics does after all matter some

[Kadagar_AV]

Ignoring the strange racial element to your argument, I think you need to get over the whole "evil rape baby" mentality. As PVC pointed out in a past thread, its a ridiculous, superstitious relic of medieval thinking.

Babies conceived by rape are not evil and they deserve all the same rights as you and me.

Around 50% of the genes are made up from the father, last I checked... I think women should be able to decide what mans seed they want to bring to the world... And yes, if negative that is the same as putting a bullet to a live beings head.

If you think otherwise you might as well acknowledge you see women on equal pair with our livestock.

Men should be able to just USE their bodies to procreate, and they should have no say in it?

Again, despicable.

[Montmorency]

Monty, I am not comprehending your argument against the 'teleological' arguments. Do you think that some amount of pain and suffering is not needed for an individual?

"Needed"? I reject the design stance. I reject "authenticity".

Don't start a new thread, this is just my response to the mention of BNW.

[Fragony]

Babies conceived by rape are not evil and they deserve all the same rights as you and me.

Mother's wellbeing comes first. I can't imagine what a psychological torture it must be to deny them that. Not allowing it is incredibly cruel. Everything has a right to live, fine, but not all life should be alive in the first place. Isn't it what you fundies would call an abonimation, something born out of evil.

[Montmorency]

Isn't it what you fundies would call an abonimation, something born out of evil.

I think you need to get over the whole "evil rape baby" mentality.

That was literally one line above the one you quoted. How do you do it?

[Fragony]

That was literally one line above the one you quoted. How do you do it?

Intentionally, why, I see no contradiction anywhere

[Rhyfelwyr]

1. Corruption? Fulfillment? In other words, not enough meaning.

2. You and ACIN are regurgitating the same tired old teleological standpoints. That is the larger point.

The reduction is one that you two have made for me repeatedly. I am only pointing it out.

You said yourself you see sex, food, shelter and safety as desirable. May I ask why?

Around 50% of the genes are made up from the father, last I checked... I think women should be able to decide what mans seed they want to bring to the world... And yes, if negative that is the same as putting a bullet to a live beings head.

If you think otherwise you might as well acknowledge you see women on equal pair with our livestock.

Men should be able to just USE their bodies to procreate, and they should have no say in it?

Again, despicable.

You said earlier that you think it is wrong to use abortion as a means of contraception. Was this not because you see that the foetus constitutes some sort of human life?

Can you then deny this life purely because of the wrongs of the father? Is a baby conceived by rape somehow less alive than any other?

Mother's wellbeing comes first. I can't imagine what a psychological torture it must be to deny them that. Not allowing it is incredibly cruel. Everything has a right to live, fine, but not all life should be alive in the first place. Isn't it what you fundies would call an abonimation, something born out of evil.

Eh, no. A baby conceived by rape is just a regular person like you or me.

[Montmorency]

You said yourself you see sex, food, shelter and safety as desirable. May I ask why?

Not about desirability. I was responding to

Its that some of the most basic human needs are not met.

Those are the most basic requirements for subsistence. So you and ACIN get off track when you start emphasizing other factors in behavior*, especially when at the same time youse are going off of their 'loftiness'.


*Going off the behavior described in, we find that these conditions are actually shown to be met in BNW. Whether or not that depiction constitutes an accurate forecast of what life under such a system would "really" be like is another matter entirely. What you and Huxley are displeased with is precisely that these things that 'humans need to be better' (or, 'fulfill their purpose', or whatever) are not provided in the right way. Really then, I suspect the sentiment is that the BNW people don't 'deserve' to lead such 'good' lives without having to endure hardships. You do want the outcomes, but seek a different process, one that you believe is more "virtuous and morally legitimate", one that can moreover bring about some valuable "spiritual" achievement that is real in some sense yet absent from the BNW world. But I can't countenance that.

[Fragony]

Eh, no. A baby conceived by rape is just a regular person like you or me.

Sure, but I find not agreeing with it a good reason to get rid of it regardless. I wouldn't want to be the one that destroys someones mind by calling it an atrocity by making them feel guilty about it, they couldn't help it if they got pregnant. I myself have absolutily no idea what to think in general. I don't like it, but who am I really, I don't know the situation they are in, I can't imagine what goes through their heads. To put it bluntly, isn't your point of view really inconsiderate, or even egocentric. Sorry for being rude.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sure, but I find not agreeing with it a good reason to get rid of it regardless. I wouldn't want to be the one that destroys someones mind by calling it an atrocity by making them feel guilty about it, they couldn't help it if they got pregnant. I myself have absolutily no idea what to think in general. I don't like it, but who am I really, I don't know the situation they are in, I can't imagine what goes through their heads. To put it bluntly, isn't your point of view really inconsiderate, or even egocentric. Sorry for being rude.

I would be being inconsiderate/egocentric if I was arguing about a real-life case when there was real human suffering involved. But we are talking about abstract arguments here, so no, I don't think I am being either of those things.

This is about trying to figure out what would be the right thing to do. We have to think about these things. If we believe that a foetus has some sort of personhood, then it is not good enough to sit back and allow abortion to happen just because it "isn't our business" what women do with their bodies. It should be everybody's business to defend innocent people from death, because that is what abortion is for the foetus.

Not about desirability. I was responding to:

"Its that some of the most basic human needs are not met."

Those are the most basic requirements for subsistence. So you and ACIN get off track when you start emphasizing other factors in behavior*, especially when at the same time youse are going off of their 'loftiness'.

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the basics of sex, food, shelter etc are all that are needed for us to life fully? And that all these things ACIN and myself talk about are just baseless philosophical fluff?

*Going off the behavior described in, we find that these conditions are actually shown to be met in BNW. Whether or not that depiction constitutes an accurate forecast of what life under such a system would "really" be like is another matter entirely. What you and Huxley are displeased with is precisely that these things that 'humans need to be better' (or, 'fulfill their purpose', or whatever) are not provided in the right way. Really then, I suspect the sentiment is that the BNW people don't 'deserve' to lead such 'good' lives without having to endure hardships. You do want the outcomes, but seek a different process, one that you believe is more "virtuous and morally legitimate", one that can moreover bring about some valuable "spiritual" achievement that is real in some sense yet absent from the BNW world. But I can't countenance that.

You've got me all wrong man. I do not think the people in BNW are living a life they don't deserve or haven't 'earned'. I feel sorry for them because their life is terrible and they are being deprived of a better life by people who have no right to take it away from them.

[Fragony]

I would be being inconsiderate/egocentric if I was arguing about a real-life case when there was real human suffering involved. But we are talking about abstract arguments here, so no, I don't think I am being either of those things.

This is about trying to figure out what would be the right thing to do. We have to think about these things. If we believe that a foetus has some sort of personhood, then it is not good enough to sit back and allow abortion to happen just because it "isn't our business" what women do with their bodies. It should be everybody's business to defend innocent people from death, because that is what abortion

I really agree with you, but to agree isn't always being in agreement. It is not something to screw up by being principle about it, than it can do more harm than good. Take a young muslim girl who was stupid enough to get pregnant, could be a death-sentence for her. A women who was raped could go absolutily insane when having to birth her rapists child. There are so many things to consider, can't wrap it up. In an ideal situation I would absolutily be against the pro-life crowd, but we aren't in it.

[Montmorency]

Rhy, my point is, why do you think they lead a terrible life? It's because they have attained certain things which you desire or at least accept normatively as desirable, but the context in which they are obtained and maintained is philosophically-invalid for you. That's really it. And that invalidity makes it seem bad, though in themselves the features of their lives are widely considered good.

For example, you would endorse something like, "They're happy, but it's a false, empty happiness because they are not living the right way."

[Montmorency]

Tangent-tangent: Would mechanically-combined or "vat-grown" human fetuses be counted as ensouled in your theology?

How about an anatomically-mature manufactured brain with "pre-programmed" experience-set? Do you see the distinction I'm getting at?

ps - please don't use terms like "philosophical zombie" in your answer.

[Strike For The South]

Tangent-tangent: Would mechanically-combined or "vat-grown" human fetuses be counted as ensouled in your theology?

Are you taking the sperm and the egg out of the equation or just the womb?

How about an anatomically-mature manufactured brain with "pre-programmed" experience-set? Do you see the distinction I'm getting at?

ps - please don't use terms like "philosophical zombie" in your answer.

No and I don't see the distinction. Although a soul is not what really dictates my morality here. One should always seek to avoid harm

[Montmorency]

Are you taking the sperm and the egg out of the equation or just the womb?

One and the other.

I don't see the distinction.

In the first case(s), the human goes through some gestation phase with accompanying development. In the latter, an adult human is made from scratch.

Notice that issues regarding "cloning" (in the technical sense) aren't necessarily relevant here.

Although a soul is not what really dictates my morality here.

Well, I was asking Rhy!

One should always seek to avoid harm

Is ending life "the sum of all sins" then, so to speak (as PVC might say)? If not, then how do you (I'm asking you personally this time) register the balance between harms?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I really agree with you, but to agree isn't always being in agreement. It is not something to screw up by being principle about it, than it can do more harm than good. Take a young muslim girl who was stupid enough to get pregnant, could be a death-sentence for her. A women who was raped could go absolutily insane when having to birth her rapists child. There are so many things to consider, can't wrap it up. In an ideal situation I would absolutily be against the pro-life crowd, but we aren't in it.

There are horrific scenarios but like I said if you see the feotus as a living person, then how can you ever suggest putting it to death? Best thing in your scenarios would be to give as much support as possible to the mothers.

Rhy, my point is, why do you think they lead a terrible life? It's because they have attained certain things which you desire or at least accept normatively as desirable, but the context in which they are obtained and maintained is philosophically-invalid for you. That's really it. And that invalidity makes it seem bad, though in themselves the features of their lives are widely considered good.

For example, you would endorse something like, "They're happy, but it's a false, empty happiness because they are not living the right way."

As much as our quality of life comes from the way in which we pursue things, as it does from having the things themselves. We are biologically wired to have drive, to compete, to want. The chemicals released by such activities into the body regulate everything from our mood, to the expulsion of waste. It's more than a means to an end, it is itself a fundamental part of our genetic make-up and to be deprived of it makes us miserable.

Tangent-tangent: Would mechanically-combined or "vat-grown" human fetuses be counted as ensouled in your theology?

How about an anatomically-mature manufactured brain with "pre-programmed" experience-set? Do you see the distinction I'm getting at?

ps - please don't use terms like "philosophical zombie" in your answer.

That is too difficult a question for me to answer. Sorry!

[Montmorency]

The chemicals released by such activities into the body regulate everything from our mood, the the expulsion of waste. It's more than a means to an end, it is itself a fundamental part of our genetic make-up and to be deprived of it makes us miserable.

If you want to confront the question of whether the depiction of BNW life is realistic or plausible:

I agree that without a variety of new tasks and activities to do, humans will become very sluggish and inactive - call it ennui, if you like. Speculation as to what these humans would "feel" is not useful; ethologically-speaking, you would probably observe them to be "stupidly happy". Suffice it to say, however, that they would be quite vulnerable to external disruptions and changes. So, I agree that the behaviors and capacities of BNW-humans are much-diminished compared to most living today.

But what you introduce beyond that is still the notion of suitability toward purpose, design, or configuration. If we remove this factor, then it becomes more difficult to say that the BNW lifestyle is less worthy than others.

To put it succinctly, I am saying this:

1. You believe there is a "right" way(s) to approach life based on teleology, and that following this or these will provide something otherwise unreachable (e.g. fulfillment).
2. Using this measure, you find the BNW society to be lacking dramatically, much more so than most-any society on Earth.
3. You thus conclude (leaving aside fundamental assumptions for now) that the BNW way has less value than most others, and much less value than whatever any of us might be going through or have experienced.

4. If you remove all that's teleologically-motivated, then the argument(s) deploring BNW-world suddenly have no basis, unless an alternative is found.
4.a. Interestingly, it seems that most, if not all, valuative reasoning occurs on the basis of intentional/teleological assumptions or reasoning - but I'm not even getting into that (just now).

[Fragony]

There are horrific scenarios but like I said if you see the feotus as a living person, then how can you ever suggest putting it to death? Best thing in your scenarios would be to give as much support as possible to the mothers.

I do see it as a living person, but I am kinda trapped by people who have better arguments